Arizona voters will decide this November whether to require the diversity of geographic distribution for ballot initiative signature gathering.
The legislature passed this proposal last year along partisan lines (Senate Concurrent Resolution 1015), now on the ballot as Proposition 134. Per the proposal, signature gatherers would have to gain support across all 15 counties, rather than focusing on the most populated ones.
The law currently allows signatures to be gathered from any area within the state. Proponents of Proposition 134 hope to ensure representation from the more rural areas of the state.
Proposition 134 would require 10 percent of registered voters from each of the state’s 30 legislative districts for statewide initiatives, 15 percent from each legislative district for constitutional changes, and five percent from each legislative district for referendums.
It’s time for a common-sense approach to representation in Arizona. Vote YES on Prop 134 for Geographical Distribution. To learn more visit: https: https://t.co/e3jPcpI6U8 #AZUnited #EveryTownMatters pic.twitter.com/77jdxHWhp4
— Arizona Farm Bureau (@azfb) August 28, 2024
Current law only requires 10 percent of registered voters for any statewide initiative, 15 percent of registered voters for any constitutional changes, and five percent of registered voters for any referendums.
Per the secretary of state’s latest voter registration data, there are over 4.1 million voters in the state. Nearly 60 percent of voters live in Maricopa County (over 2.4 million voters).
Under current requirements, signature gatherers only have to obtain about 411,000 voter signatures for statewide initiatives, 616,400 voter signatures for constitutional changes, and 205,500 voter signatures for referendums.
Among those in favor of the proposition are the Arizona Farm Bureau, Arizona Free Enterprise Club, and the Goldwater Institute.
The Goldwater Institute operates the organization AZ Ballot Fairness in support of Proposition 134.
In a press release, AFB said that allowing “one big county” to pass initiatives without input from rural residents was unfair and could impose unintended consequences.
“Right now, rural Arizonans are completely ignored in the process. It is easier to sit on college campuses and densely populated areas like downtown Phoenix to collect all the requisite signatures than to get the buy-in from the diverse interests of Arizonans in other parts of the state,” said the Farm Bureau. “These diverse interests have a right to a voice in determining whether an issue will appear on the ballot.”
Those opposed include the Arizona Forward Party (AFP) and the Arizona Public Health Association (APHA).
AFP argued that the burden for signature gathering would be too great, citing the hypothetical of initiatives dying for a shortage of signatures in even one district.
“If only one district fails to collect enough signatures, the referendum, initiative, or amendment will fail to appear on the ballot no matter how popular or relative it is to the rest of the state,” said AFP.
APHA argued that the proposed signature gathering requirements would hinder and delay health campaigns as well as critical interventions.
“Public health advocacy often relies on the ability to mobilize quickly and effectively to address emerging issues,” said ADH.
Opponents argue that the measure would actually decrease representation by requiring its diversification.
Arizona is one of 26 states that allow a ballot initiative or referendum process, called citizen-initiated ballot measures, one of 20 that allow statute and veto referendum, and one of 15 that allow amendment, statute, and veto referendum. The other nine states either allow amendment or veto referendum only.
Less than a dozen of those states have a signature distribution requirement.
